OurWeek The Grant County Record in Grant County · Regular meeting, August 18, 2026 · 2026-08-18 · full transcript https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrOnkCzUrRk Exported Mon, 14 Sep 2026 20:31:47 GMT Source: Third-party AI transcription (Wayin.ai) of the council's recording, 0:07 to 57:50 — YouTube's automatic captions were not available at capture time (they published later and were used to cross-check the indexed moments). Speaker labels are the service's diarization (Speaker 1, Unknown) and name nobody; a turn's label is kept as the only speaker boundary the file carries. The recording ends during the adjournment roll call. Machine transcription garbles proper nouns — this record renders the parks department as "Merriam Parks" and one council surname three ways — verify wording against the recording before quoting. Copied into the combined index from the marion-city-council-indexed report; same text, key prefixed by body. These transcripts are machine-generated. They garble proper nouns badly — company and personal names especially. Watch the recording before repeating any name, number, or quotation. The video is the record. ============================================================================== Indexed at https://ourweek.in/grant-county/reports/grant-county-record 0:07 Speaker 1: All right, we'll go ahead and call tonight's meeting to order. Let me see if I can get my stuff here. The prayer tonight will be by Pastor Jeremy Moore from Sunny Caress Community Church. Jeremy, thank you very much for doing that for us tonight. After that, the Pledge of Allegiance will be done by Councilman Jeff Reyes. And everybody stand and remove your hats, please. 0:38 Speaker 2: Holy Heavenly Father, we come before you to give thanks for who you are. We thank you, Lord, for the love that you show us, the grace and the mercy you continue to pour out to us. Lord, I pray that for each and every one of us we might take a moment to repent of those sins where we have fallen short of You, where we have not listened to Your will, we've not listened to Your voice. Lord, we pray for your forgiveness and your mercy that we might have clean hearts as we go forward tonight and do your business. Lord, we give you thanks for the love and mercy and protection you've shown this community over the past week or so. 1:13 Speaker 2: Father, many of our fellow Hoosiers are really suffering. And Lord, I just pray we would take a moment of silence to think of those affected by these recent floods. Holy Heavenly Father, we just pray a blessing upon all of our public servants. Our firefighters, our police officers and our councilmen. 1:43 Speaker 2: Lord all those you have called to serve this community may they do it to the best of their abilities Lord led by your Holy Spirit. May you have a blessing of wisdom and discernment for each and every one of them as they do the business of this city tonight and going forward. Lord, we thank you for this opportunity in time and may all our praise and glory be to you in the mighty name of Jesus, amen. 2:06 Unknown: Cain. Here. Reyes. Here. Gordyce. Here. Brunner. Present. Klein. Here. Marshall. Here. Whitten. 2:35 Speaker 3: Here. 2:36 Speaker 4: Devine. 2:39 Speaker 3: Here. Calgill. Here. 2:45 Speaker 1: Next on the agenda is our recognition spotlight and tonight we are representing a group of people that is more than deserving of recognition. They do a fantastic job. It's the Merriam Parks and Recreational employees and volunteers. We have this beautiful award-winning park. It looks gorgeous with the flowers and the way it just looks all year. There's people come from all over for our park. 3:17 Speaker 1: I'm so proud of it, and I think everybody that worked so hard on it. Rose, would you like to come on up here? 3:38 Speaker 5: I just wrote down a few things. Because I get up here and babble so I just want to thank all of our volunteers and park employees for their exceptional work and dedication to not only Matter Park gardens but to all our city parks which includes over 160 acres. Your hard work not only maintaining the gardens at Matter Park not gone unnoticed. And I am personally grateful for every park employee and volunteer. Thank you for giving your time and energy to support the Parks Department because without all our many volunteers and dedicated park employees over the years, the parks would not be what they are today. 4:17 Speaker 5: The hard work everyone puts in today ensures that thousands of families and outdoor lovers have a clean, safe, and welcoming space to enjoy every day. Day in and day out, your attention to detail and positive attitudes make a huge difference for our entire community. Your commitment inspires people around you, and shows how much one person can change a community for the better. And I appreciate every single one of you, and it's an honor to work with you on a daily basis. 4:57 Speaker 5: So, the City Council has created individual spotlight certificates for the following. And as I call your name, if you will come up and get your certificate, and then at the end, we'll take a picture. 5:13 Unknown: Julie Fowzer. 5:18 Speaker 5: Melissa Rogers. Julia Glessner, who is unable to be with us tonight. Jeremiah Horvath. We got Mike Petoskey. Zach Hodge. 5:51 Speaker 5: Nick Graff. 5:57 Unknown: Joe Bowler. 6:02 Speaker 5: Michelle Pond. And then we have some seasonal employees who have made a huge difference in our park this year. And I know Jeremiah, where are you? I have appreciated each and every one of them. They really have stepped up, and I don't think any of them are here tonight, but Willie Green. LD Riley. 6:36 Speaker 5: Paul Hardigan. And Bella Fosnight. And then our volunteers that are here tonight are Tom and Cheryl Bell. And then we have George Hill, Pat Hill, and Chris Meyer, who continually volunteer at our park and make a huge difference, especially in Matterpark and the gardens. 7:14 Speaker 5: And I know the ladies appreciate all of those volunteers. Oh, I gave them too much. Thank you everyone. 7:39 Speaker 1: End of the council, you guys like any comments? 7:45 Speaker 7: Yeah, I will. I think they do just a fantastic job. Matter Park is just a highlight of the city, and you guys, your hard work, dedication means the world to the community. 7:57 Speaker 8: Yeah, I take a lot of pride I ride in our park, and anybody comes to town, or I talk about it. As my stress relief, I get on my little Honda 50 and I ride from my house through the park and back home. So that's the destination. I love our park, and I think you guys are doing a great job. 8:34 Unknown: Thank you. 9:22 Speaker 1: Okay, next item is the consent agenda. If there is any discussion on this? If not, I will entertain a motion. 9:57 Speaker 9: Mr. President, I move that we pass the consent agenda. Second. 10:03 Speaker 1: We have a motion by Councilman Kane, second by Councilman Brenner. Roll call, please. 10:08 Unknown: Kane? Aye. 10:09 Speaker 3: Reyes? 10:10 Unknown: Aye. 10:11 Speaker 3: Fordyce? 10:12 Unknown: Aye. 10:13 Multiple Speakers: Brunner? 10:14 Unknown: Aye. Klein? 10:15 Speaker 3: Yes. Marshall? Aye. Witton? Yes. Devine? Yes. 10:21 Unknown: Talgat? 10:22 Speaker 1: Aye. Any committee reports? 10:28 Speaker 11: I do, as soon as I find it. Okay. And it's a short one, nonetheless. Anyway, Aviation Board met August 5th, and the highlight of the meeting is that the fuel farm is now up and running. We helped pay for that through ARPA money. After a final kerfuffle, a little valve was installed Saturday, and so the Jet A and the 100 low-lead, both systems are fully up and running. 11:02 Speaker 11: They've got the self-service going, so. Good news on that front. They're still waiting to see about the grant application for the construction of a partial parallel taxiway toward runway three, three. The design phase has already been approved. And they're looking forward, getting forward, looking forward to the fly-in cruise in Liberty Weekend. And Indiana Westland, the Aviation Academy is going to have a big display out there too. 11:36 Speaker 11: So go check it out. Thank you. Thank you, Michael. 11:43 Speaker 12: The Board of Works met yesterday, and they spoke with the police department regarding the updated drone SOP. They went through the different discussions. They were kind of clarifying where where they can be flown and how, in the levels, and what can be recorded. And that it has to be requested to go out versus just flying to fly and see what was going on. 12:14 Speaker 12: And other little details along those lines. They also have put one of the older original drones up as surplus property sale and had put out forbid a with a minimum bid at the time of the meeting. They had not gotten any minimum bids for it. The hope was the minimum they were looking for, I think, was $23,000. It was one of the bigger ones and had all the extra equipment and thing. They said with the new technology, they can get down into some of the smaller ones and don't have to have all the big. 12:48 Speaker 12: They were hoping to be able to replace it with another piece of equipment, but if they don't get any bids, then they'll keep it and keep using it. And that was it for the Board of Works. 13:01 Speaker 1: Any other committee reports? Okay, we'll move on to unfinished business. Additional appropriation 14-2026. 13:17 Speaker 3: Appropriation for blight elimination, second reading and public hearing. An additional appropriation appropriating $500,000 for blight elimination. Speaking Justin Dickerson, building commissioner. 13:31 Speaker 13: Welcome, Justin. Thank you. All right, so I'm back for the second reading for the $500,000 from the mayor's edit fund, like I spoke on last time. I've got 12 properties that are ready to go right now. 10 in the Board of Works process, sorry. Then I've also got a stack of 40 that we're actually reviewing right now. 14:02 Speaker 13: We worked on it today, and there's at least another 15 there that we just sent out all new 10 days. So, depending on them getting back with me on the 10 days, whether they go to the Board of Works or not. I did get some numbers for the first, the 12 that are approved. I can give those to you guys if you want them. But yeah, I'd be happy to answer any questions if you guys have them. 14:32 Speaker 7: Yeah, Justin. I'd like for you to go ahead and give me those numbers. You got 12? 14:37 Unknown: Twelve. 14:38 Speaker 7: With the numbers on them already? 14:39 Unknown: Yep. 14:39 Speaker 7: Okay. Have you made copies of them, or are you just going to read them all? 14:44 Speaker 13: I can give this to you, or I can read them off. It's up to you. 14:47 Speaker 7: If you give me a total amount on the 12, that'll be helpful. 14:51 Speaker 13: All right, so the 11 that are the normal residential is $236,000. And then when we add in the Wright's Furniture Store, we're at $304,083. 15:06 Speaker 7: That's great. I'd just like to make one caveat to this $500,000 for demolition. I would ask that you use it only for demolition and nothing else. I don't want you taking money out of it for other things. Like in the past, I'd like to dedicate this for nothing but demolitions. And I'll do a caveat to the motion on that. And I want you to use it for anything else, just demolitions. 15:36 Speaker 7: We've pilfered that fund and pilfered it, and that's why we're down as low as we are now. We've used it for other things, and we don't need to do that, and we've got so many houses to tear down. 15:49 Unknown: Thank you. 15:55 Speaker 14: Real quick, Justin. The 11 that have already been approved on residential, of the other 40 applications that are 40 properties that you're reviewing, how many of those are residential? 16:13 Speaker 13: The 40 that are in review right now are all residential. 16:18 Speaker 14: Okay. Are there any other commercial type properties like rights that are being considered? 16:24 Speaker 13: Not at the moment. 16:25 Speaker 14: Okay. 16:30 Speaker 8: I have a question that's not related so much to tonight's topic, but I've noticed since you're employed with the city, that a lot of orange stickers have been put on some of the blight that I've seen. Could you tell me what the sticker says? I haven't gotten out of my car to read them. Is it like a… Are they all the same? 16:47 Speaker 13: Yeah, they're all the same. It's code enforcement when they mow the grass. 16:51 Speaker 8: Okay. So even if it's stuck on the building, it's that's what it's about. 16:54 Speaker 13: Yeah. 16:58 Speaker 14: Another quick question on that. Do you think so you're at 304.83 over the 40. I mean, if all 40 went through review and were accepted, do you have enough is that enough money to take care of 40 additional pieces of blight? 17:21 Speaker 13: It's not. 17:23 Speaker 7: Jeff read that they're averaging on the 11 houses at 236,000 is $21,454 a house. 17:39 Speaker 14: So then what's last quick question, what's the plan for though, you know, we're going to pick another 11 houses of the 40 that can tend to 11 properties that can be torn down. What's the plan for the others? Just continue with those 18:00 Multiple Speakers: stickers and such? 18:01 Speaker 13: Yeah, we're going to continue with the process, and then next year's budget will play right into it. We're just going to try to keep right on moving. If we stop and take a break on it, they're just going to add up, you know? 18:15 Speaker 15: Exactly. 18:20 Speaker 13: Yeah, I'm for that one too. 18:42 Speaker 9: Justin, is there any pushback from you or your department as far as, you know, Mr. Fordyce wants to dedicate the full $500,000 and I don't have a problem with that. But is there any pushback? Is there any monies that you needed for anything else? So you're in agreement it can 19:04 Multiple Speakers: go 19:05 Speaker 13: All $500,000 can go right 19:06 Multiple Speakers: into demolition. Okay. 19:08 Speaker 9: Thank you for that clarification. 19:14 Speaker 16: I appreciate you pushing this appropriation through. There's a whole lot in District 5 that needs taken care of, and I appreciate that. I fully support it. Thank you. 19:26 Speaker 9: This is probably one of, you know, something that the public can really see what their tax paying money is being spent for, because, you know, just to clean up blight, which it's never ending because people aren't accountable for the property. Necessary, and it happens in every city. 20:01 Speaker 9: So I'm certainly in favor of this. 20:04 Speaker 13: Yeah, and I do send out 10 days to try to get in contact with the owner and try to, you know, push for a scope of work, you know, try to bring it back before we have to take it to the board of works to get a demo order. So sometimes it works, which I do have a couple cases where they are actually rehabbing the houses after I've pushed on them. But most of the time, we get our mailers back and we don't get no response. The only thing left to do is take it to the board of works. 20:39 Speaker 14: People drive and they think everything's that way, and it's not what Marion is about. So I think same thing. I'm in favor with it, and especially if you're giving them notice and such on plenty of time, ample amount of time to get things done, and there's no response. The ones that want to help move the city forward, they're going to make it happen. 21:09 Speaker 7: I got one more comment that I've been talking to Justin about these on demolitions and stuff. And he knows as well as I know, over the years, we could go back and back and back into Sebald administration when they're tearing them down, we've probably got what we talked, probably over five million in liens on properties of houses we've demoed that we should pursue. You know, at least, you know, go after the owners of stuff. And on some of these, Justin has got an idea that maybe he can start recouping some of the money on the demolitions, going after some of these LLCs, the half houses that are just going to pot and leave them go to pot. 21:51 Speaker 7: He's gonna maybe pursue it through court system and try to recoup some of this money. So, and that's going to be a positive too, if we can do like we do code enforcement, that money comes back into code enforcement, and then they can keep doing more projects with code enforcement. Same way with demolition. And he's got a positive attitude on trying to pursue that so we can collect some of the demolition fees from some of these LLCs and landlords and stuff that just let them go and homeowners. And, you know, if we pursue it, the county does it. 22:22 Speaker 7: They do well on collecting some of it through some collection agencies and stuff like that. You just got to take them into court and, you know, take him for a judge and get a judgment and set up payment plan or liens or whatever on it. So, and that's going to help. I think also we could further down the road, we can tear down more houses if we go that route. Thank you. 22:44 Speaker 14: Well, and with that, like it's a good point because there's properties around properties that we have had contact with and their owners don't live close. They don't live local. They don't care about the property. They don't care about the area. And even when you try to have good conversations about, Hey, we want to take this off your hand. Click, hang up. They don't answer. They don't do nothing. And it's not helping us at all. It's helping them. And I think Gary has a good point with recoup that money, take them back, and it's going to help clean this city up. 23:21 Speaker 1: Anybody else? Okay, this is a second reading public hearing. If you want to just sit down for just a second, I'll open this up to the public and anybody wants to speak for or against this. You have three minutes to speak. Give us your name, address, and we'll go from there. 23:54 Unknown: Hello. Hi. 23:55 Speaker 17: Greg Kitts, 2501 North River Road, or one within the city. 114 West 2nd Street. Certainly in favor of this. I remember it's been about 15 years ago, I owned a couple of houses. One on Boots, one on Gallatin Street and actually worked with the city. And I paid to have those taken down. I didn't know if you guys are still doing a program like that. The 21,000 jumped out at me because I think when I had those houses torn down, I think you guys used your excavator and I had to pay for the dumpsters. 24:34 Speaker 17: And I'm thinking it was $6,000 per house. So I think it cost $12,000. And then I think it was either Habitat for Humanity, I think, has now built houses there on those properties. And so that's nice, you know, it improved the neighborhood. It was in like the 1200 block of South Boots and South Gallatin. So it's nice, but I just, I didn't know if, you know, that program still exists. But the 21,000 just it sounds like such a large number. 25:03 Speaker 1: It's still 6,000 if we do it like if just back when you're talking about Greg, we had a guy that was. That's what he done. So that's what helped compared to now where he's just trying to get the ones done, but we have to contract him out to have them tore down. Okay, that's what the extra. 25:20 Speaker 17: So those are contracted out. Okay. Okay. All right. So that program does still exist. If someone is willing to do that. Okay. Super. But yeah, I unfortunately, yeah, you see so many of the vacant homes, but yeah, yeah, it's almost like I'm gonna need five million dollars. Yeah, yeah. All right. Thank you. 25:45 Speaker 18: Hello, Ryan Howell at 2909 South Branson Street. And if this is subsidized by a local taxpayer, I'd have to say I'm against it. Because you think $500,000 could go to landlords, entrepreneurs, high paying jobs instead. A lot of this blight elimination could very well take care of itself. 26:16 Speaker 18: To me, it's seems like it's punishing success and rewarding failure because you're taken out of hardworking taxpayers' pockets. And I don't know if this is. Real community helpfulness. I don't know the words to explain it, but it's not real to me. It's subsidized by the taxpayer. What would be real, as someone from outside, some hardworking gentleman or lady come in here and want to just buy a city plot because there's a lot of opportunity here and do this themselves. 26:57 Speaker 18: But with that being said, if this is supplemented by grants, which I believe some of it is. I don't know. I just locally, I think it's taking blood from a stone. Thank you, and you guys have a good one. 27:11 Unknown: Thank you. 27:19 Speaker 15: I'm Bill Crete, 1409 Ironwood Drive. I'm definitely for this, but I did have one question that maybe could be considered. When I was in the Michigan area, specifically Pontiac, whether as a district manager for Lowe's, the Pontiac area would sell them similar to what you said to somebody who wanted to invest this property for $1 apiece. All they had to do was pay for it to be torn down. 27:50 Speaker 15: I didn't know if that was something you could consider and maybe have some person come in that wants to develop them And create a win-win situation. So thank you very much, it was very successful in that area. 28:07 Speaker 6: So Ruth Ann Sumter, 809 McAllen Drive, Marion. There's a property on South Nebraska and I was scrolling through my pictures because I took a picture of it last year and submitted it when we were talking about cleaning up. 28:40 Speaker 6: And that property has been neglected for decades. Why? You probably all know where I'm talking about in the 2000 area. You can't even see the house anymore. It has to be quite a nice environment for the wildlife and it's a disgrace to the community. 29:14 Speaker 6: And I wonder why different administrations have not pursued getting that demolished or cleaned up or something. I love our library and the old Jewish temple has vehicles parked on the street that have been there for a year and they've got the demolition or the remodeling going on. 29:55 Speaker 6: I don't know what it is, but the big hole beside the building that's just growing weeds very well. And I just think that we need to stick to our guns if if they're not going to clean it up. And 30:24 Speaker 19: Linda Wilk, 1016 West 5th Street. Definitely in favor of the I wish she didn't have to do it. But the reality is you do. And so anything you can do to try and recoup the money. That's something when I was on the board of works, we had talked about. So yes, pay the money and yes, try and do everything you can to recoup it. 30:41 Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Linda. 30:49 Speaker 20: Michael Duke, Grant County resident. Live out on Bradford Pike in the 500 block. Question actually, first I'll say it's important to keep up appearances. That's necessary. But for the amount of money that Mr. Fordyce indicated and Mr. Kitt's reference to, about $21,000 per house. I would ask the question of Mr. Dickerson if he could please articulate to the public that would give assurance to the taxpayers that on each demolition project that is contracted out, what the process is for engaging the contractor. 31:33 Speaker 20: Is it a sole source type of situation? Is it a bid situation? And I assume there would be public records that would be available to identify who the contractor is for each demolition site and the amount. And if it was, like I say, sole source or a bidding process to assure the taxpayers their hard-earned dollars should be well spent. So, question to Mr. Dickerson, if you would, or if you could address it. 32:05 Speaker 20: The council members could address it. 32:19 Speaker 1: Let's see if there's any more public, and then we'll have you address that. Anybody else from the public? Okay, I'll go ahead and close the public portion of this now. 32:33 Unknown: Go ahead. 32:35 Speaker 13: So, to address that question about the bidding and whatnot, we have three main contractors that have the equipment, are able to do it. We call it data excavating, Braggs, Sullivan's, JTPs. We give everybody a chance to quote them, even the little guys. If they call me and like, Do you have any demos on the list? Can I bid them? I'll give them the list and give them an opportunity to bid it. 33:06 Speaker 13: But nine times out of ten, you know, when you own your own equipment and all that, the cheap, I mean, they're usually cheaper. 33:13 Unknown: Yeah. 33:13 Speaker 1: And you got to be insured and all that, and every, there's qualifications, okay? 33:19 Speaker 7: And that is a matter of public record on the bids when they turn in a bid to you. You can divulge that to anybody on the bid once they're done. That's what he was wanting to know if he could access those once they're done. 33:36 Speaker 13: I think you have to file like a records report. Yeah, but yeah, 33:44 Speaker 7: yeah, you can get copies of, yeah, definitely. 33:48 Speaker 14: Yeah, definitely. Real quick, Justin, can you just, again, on some of the other comments, I think they're great, but can you kind of discuss the process in regards to what it actually looks like for us to go in and take that property? Because there are specific requirements. The home could look boarded up, but if it's not receiving significant damage or openings or things like that, that's in code for us to actually go in there. 34:20 Speaker 14: We can't, like, yeah, take that per se. Can you talk a little bit about that so we have some clarification on that? 34:27 Speaker 13: Yeah, so in the Board of Works, we came up with one to five star review. You know, five being an absolute worst, one being, it looks bad, but there's no immediate code violations. So if it's like a five star, you know, fire happened and, you know, half the building's missing, you know, we reach out to him, 10-day notice for them to get in contact with me. What are we going to do about it? 34:58 Speaker 13: Like I said, if we don't get any comment or nothing back, then we take it to the Board of Works. But we always give the homeowner an opportunity to kind of fix it themselves. 35:10 Speaker 14: And now, is that just, again, if a neighbor has somebody that lives next to them that they're, again, like, there's problems, it's overgrown, it looks terrible, it's been there for a long time. Is that a form or something that they can submit to you? Do they, do they call your office? What does that look, how can, how can they help you and your team by talking or get informing you about these properties so they actually get on your list? So that process can start. 35:42 Speaker 13: Gotcha. So we have an app on it, it's the City of Marion app. It's called Savita app. You can get on there and I think that's a good point. You can go through the app, the Sabita app. Then it will get directed to the department head to which the complaint is. 36:09 Unknown: Great. 36:10 Speaker 14: And that's stuff that's easily accessible to the public in any way, shape, or form. Like so they can stop by, scan the QR, do whatever. Get the information, look it up on the app store, download it. So when they're driving or they're in their neighborhood, they can immediately do that. 36:29 Speaker 13: Yes, you can send pictures, comments, the whole nine. And like I said, it goes directly to the department head of the issue. Perfect, thank you. 36:44 Speaker 1: If there's no more discussion, I'll entertain a motion. 36:55 Speaker 9: Mr. President, I move that we pass. I want to give Mr. Fordyce the opportunity to make a motion because he wanted to amend the motion. 37:12 Speaker 7: Yeah. Yeah. I would make the motion to approve. Additional appropriation 14 2026 with the caveat that the 500,000 go directly for blight elimination and demolition only. 37:34 Multiple Speakers: You want to suspend 37:34 Speaker 1: the rules or 37:35 Speaker 9: suspend the rules on that? Yeah. Okay. I second. 37:40 Speaker 1: You got that Aisha Debbie? 37:43 Unknown: Okay. 37:43 Speaker 1: Okay. We have a motion by councilman Ford. I second by councilman Cain. Roll call. 37:49 Speaker 3: Cain, aye. Reyes, aye. Fordyce, aye. Brunner, aye. Klein, yes. Marshall, aye. Whitten, yes. 38:00 Unknown: Devine, yes. 38:01 Speaker 3: Calgo, aye. 38:02 Speaker 1: I'll now take a motion to pass. 38:07 Speaker 7: I would make motion to pass additional appropriation fourteen twenty twenty six. Second. 38:13 Speaker 1: Have a motion by councilman Ford. I second by councilman Whitten. Roll call. 38:18 Unknown: Fordyce, aye. 38:20 Speaker 3: Brunner, aye. Klein, yes. 38:24 Unknown: Marshall, aye. 38:26 Speaker 3: Whitten, yes. Devine, yes. Calgo, aye. Good job. 38:33 Speaker 9: Thank you. And I will say this, I, you know, I've got on my cell phone, it's my Marion app. I've used it many times to turn in properties for for mowing and so forth. You guys are very responsive to that and I appreciate that. 38:50 Speaker 13: Thank you guys. 38:51 Speaker 9: It's very easy to use. 38:53 Unknown: Yeah. Okay. 38:58 Speaker 1: Next on the agenda is new business. General ordinance for twenty twenty six. 39:06 Speaker 3: Second Street direction change. First reading. Discussion of three options to amend general ordinance thirteen nineteen ninety five. Changing Second Street to a two-way street. Speaking, Mike Craft, administrative and project manager and chairman of the traffic commission. 39:25 Unknown: Hi Mike. 39:26 Speaker 1: The 39:26 Multiple Speakers: titles just keep 39:27 Speaker 21: getting bigger. You sound more important every year. It's like FPPPC, CCI, who knows? Who knows what's happening next? It's just a menagerie of things. So thanks for allowing me to come this evening. Most of you have kind of already heard about this or know really what the topic is. This really stemmed. The reason we're here tonight is because of the closure of First Street when River Rocks came in. There was a concern from Public Safety. 40:01 Speaker 21: a concern from Public Safety. Once First Street left, that now they have to go over the bridge, Branson Street bridge, and either turn off in the center, our suit, or suit, or drive, or go to Grant Street and then come back again on Washington Street. So the Traffic Commission reviewed it. We had a couple of, which you all have the options that we looked at during the Traffic Commission. We went a little bit more in depth for you to review on the cost of each option and the displacement of parking on the, on Second Street. 40:46 Speaker 21: The Traffic Commission believes that the very first option that is presented to you, as Alternate One, will be the best course of action. To look at it tonight, and in the future, as growth in that area goes, we may deem that Second Street needs to be the public safety concern. Again, this is just a discussion. 41:17 Speaker 21: The ordinance is not before you, and the reason that is because there are three alternates. I want to make sure that we have a discussion. I will write up the ordinance because if you look at the existing ordinance, the way it is, it's basically a chart that tells you which streets are one way. So we would just have to amend the chart in the ordinance for whatever decision that you make. Again, I've got larger drawings if there's any questions. 41:48 Speaker 21: But again, the recommendation from the Traffic Commission would be to look at Alternate Number One, which is converting Second Street from one way to two way between Adams and Branson Street. And again, it's at minimal cost, about $5,000. The biggest concern, as everybody will ask, that we've got a one-way that's coming from Nebraska that will stop at Adams Street. 42:21 Speaker 21: And right now, if you look at the pavement markings, there's a left turn that's already designated to go northbound on Adams if you're, if you're coming towards Branson Street. And then a straight line that would continue. So that marking wouldn't change. The only thing that we would really have to do is signage. I didn't see anybody here from Kennedy's, but when we had our public hearing and our meetings with the Traffic Commission, they're fully aware of what we're wanting to do. 42:56 Speaker 21: They were already contracting with the parking lot next to their building to put their vehicles. So that will be the only area that would be displaced of parking. So again, this is for discussion. If you would like to discuss any of the other alternates, obviously the price is going to affect whatever we do. But I certainly didn't want to just come at you with just one alternate, and then you may ask me a question of why we didn't look at the other. So I'd be glad to answer any of your questions. 43:28 Speaker 11: Well, just for giggles, what are the other two and the costs? You didn't get these in your? I don't that doesn't look familiar. 43:39 Speaker 21: Okay. So I can give you yeah, I can give them to you, Mike. No, no problem. Alternate Number Two involves converting Second Street from Boots to Branson. Which you're going to lose 21 parking spaces and and there'll be 12 parking spaces remaining. And the cost to convert that is $57,024. How much would that max be? $57,024. Alternate three is a lot more comprehensive obviously. 44:14 Speaker 21: It takes us from Nebraska Street all the way to Branson Street. And there are a couple different subalternates within that. Obviously, if we do any work as it pertains to Washington Street, there's a signal there. So either we add a head and so that the two-way traffic can be absorbed with a new traffic signal. That cost is $62,205. But the result of it is 40 parking spaces are lost with 22 parking spaces remaining. 44:50 Speaker 21: And then alternate 3A is a complete revamp of the Washington Street intersection with brand new lights, brand new signal lights, and that puts us in like a $228,000 range. The numbers don't change other than the signal. 45:09 Speaker 14: Correct. 45:11 Speaker 21: The only thing that changes in there is how we do the signal. If we do a full-blown signal upgrade into LEDs and all that stuff. 45:21 Speaker 14: So based on growth and things that are changing down in the downtown area, if we do the $5,000 option. Comparatively, like how much time does that give us until we're gonna have to look at the $57,000? 45:40 Speaker 21: I would say as the build-out obviously is elevate Marion works and in that build-out works, we're gonna see what's gonna happen at Second and Washington to see whether or not if Washington Street's going to take all the traffic and without Second Street, you may never have to revisit it. It's still something there to give you for later on that you got to go, Okay. We looked at this and this is kind of what the cost is going to be. But for now, I think that President Calgill and I, when we're on the Traffic Commission, our main goal right now is public safety. 46:19 Speaker 21: Because we lost a street that gave direct access. So that's what we're trying to amend. And it's the least obtrusive, if you want to 46:28 Multiple Speakers: call it that. It takes away the least amount of parking. 46:30 Speaker 1: It's the cheapest method right now and we could always go more in the future if we found out that it needed to be, rather than to go all the way and maybe we didn't need to. 46:41 Speaker 21: Right. That again costing citizens needless dollars that they don't need to expend when this, if we take it, you can always do it. You know, the steps are always there because you're going to, if you do it in phases, then you're just changing the direction. 46:57 Speaker 7: So and I think one thing that, I think we should pay attention to is the loss of parking spaces. Correct? I mean, as you keep going up, it's more parking spaces, more parking spaces, more. You know, you went from 11 to 40 and, you know. So I think that it'd be a good point to start with option 1 and then see how that's going to take place in my opinion because the biggest thing downtown that we need is parking. 47:25 Unknown: Yeah. 47:25 Speaker 21: So don't disagree. 47:27 Multiple Speakers: Right. 47:29 Speaker 21: And with all or no one, you're losing seven spaces which, when we had the initial conversations with Kennedy's, sure, that's who really used that area. Yeah, they don't have a lot of people coming into the building. Most of it is their their vans and everything that were parking down there even overnight. And they were using the parking space across the way at one point that now belongs to River Rock, so they lost they lost all that anyways. 47:55 Speaker 7: And he said he didn't have a problem with that. 47:57 Multiple Speakers: Kennedy. No, he didn't have no problem. He was already agreed on. 48:00 Speaker 7: Pretty agreeable with that. So, correct. Yeah, we've got all that taken care of. The question is, so least amount of parking space. 48:05 Speaker 21: So, and again, it's discussion. So what I would do, it, and I can bring it, we can bring it back as a first reading if you like. Or you can suspend your rules and do the ordinance. Allow me to bring the ordinance in on second reading if that's the, I'll do it either way you want to do it. So. 48:23 Speaker 4: Jim had a question. Mike, what's the timetable on all the different options? 48:29 Speaker 21: Well, obviously, the alternate one is I have to bring one machine in here to get rid of stop bars and some arrows that are already down. That's very simple. I could literally have the signage and stuff done within probably a month. And have it done. Now, the more you get into it, the more signage that's required to get parking removed. And then if you get into Washington Street, now you're talking about a signal that takes a lot longer. 49:00 Speaker 21: But I would say within a month, once you approve one way or the other for alternate one, we could have it up and going. 49:10 Unknown: Thank you. 49:14 Speaker 12: And Mike, you're saying that the basically for public safety standpoint, what you're talking about is allowing people to drive on Second Street versus having to go Branson to Third to Adams. You're just 49:29 Multiple Speakers: cutting Well, it's actually there 49:31 Speaker 21: right now. If they're going northbound, they're going Branson, they're having to go over the bridge, then either they're going to 49:37 Multiple Speakers: go on to private 49:38 Speaker 21: property because Souter is not a city street, or they have to go up to Grant and then come back. 49:43 Speaker 12: And then come back or the opposite direction. 49:45 Multiple Speakers: Yes, yes. Then go up there. Correct? Yeah. 49:48 Speaker 12: So just that one block, pretty much all of that. 49:51 Multiple Speakers: Yeah. 49:51 Speaker 21: Which is what we lost with the river rocks. We're just kind of shifting it from north to south. 50:04 Speaker 9: I need a clarification. Yep. So tonight when we pass this on to second reading and public hearing, can we just pass this as is, get input from the public? And then at that point in time, during second reading and public hearing, make a motion to choose the alternate plan? 50:32 Multiple Speakers: Is that how we want to do that? I think if you're 50:34 Speaker 21: in that's what the discussion here tonight is. If you're all in favor of alternate one, I will bring that back to you in an ordinance. That that that dam 50:43 Multiple Speakers: will be able to. 50:43 Speaker 9: But that does not leave. 50:46 Multiple Speakers: Well, we've already had public hearings 50:48 Speaker 21: with the traffic commission. The Kitsons were there. They were not in favor of the whole closure. I think that they were comfortable with this option. And they're one of the few on that street that are affected. So we've really kind of done that legwork for you by having that. I guess I wanted you to see what the total cost would be for future that if that you know what you're getting into if you go forward with it later. You can do whatever you want. 51:19 Speaker 21: You can open it up to second reading and public hearing, and talk about all of them. That's your option. I'm just trying to save you some legwork. 51:28 Speaker 11: So our option, if we couch this motion, we can couch this motion so it's only on section one. Correct. Option one. Correct. And I found it and I apologize for anyway. Or. We couch it as y'all come. 51:47 Speaker 21: Yeah. I'll be here either way. So if you want to have everybody comment on if you get 90% of the people said make the whole thing two-way, then all of then the next reading, we'll come back with it. The ordinance that says two-way all the way. 52:06 Speaker 11: Or if we mention, we couch that, we make the motion for option one. But we do drive-by mentions of the other two outside the motion, then people might have a chance to say something, rather than having a whole dedicated option one speech and option two speech and option. Am I thinking too much? 52:33 Speaker 14: I think what Dave is saying is, and what Mike is saying is, 52:38 Speaker 10: we have, 52:39 Speaker 14: or yeah, well, they're talking about we either talk about all this again, which has already been done at the traffic commission, at traffic commission where the public has already talked about it. Or we make a decision and say, Option one, based on what the professional is saying, is the best option right now. Do we agree with that? Yes or no? If not, then we have to go through the whole thing again if we think option two, alternate two or three is better at the time being for the city. And then push it forward based on what we're saying there. 53:11 Speaker 21: I'm just, the reason we brought it to you this way is for you to discuss it. I'm not asking you to. If you want to hold this to another first reading, then I'll do it that way, but then I still don't have an ordinance to bring to you. That's the key. 53:33 Speaker 16: And correct me if I'm wrong, didn't this already, this already came before the council last year, right? And then we tabled it 53:40 Multiple Speakers: and put it to committee? Yes, because we were still trying to 53:42 Speaker 21: figure out which direction we were going to go. 53:44 Unknown: Okay. 53:46 Speaker 4: And Mike, do I hear you right that number two is 57,000 plus, number three is 62,000, three A is a quarter of a million? 53:58 Speaker 21: Correct. Yeah. And each option or each alternate shows you the breakdown of what either, I mean, the biggest part of everything in the kits is we're part of that. The initial conversations is the loss of parking. That's where this all boils down to. 54:16 Speaker 16: So the traffic commission is recommending option one, correct? Correct. Okay, I'm good with that. 54:25 Speaker 11: We can make, we could do it. All right, this is important, but not yet urgent, right? Well, it is, 54:34 Speaker 21: it's getting to that point because the build out of River Rock is getting much closer. 54:39 Speaker 11: Closer. Okay. What I'm getting at is inviting you to come back, rewrite this as an ordinance, specifically section one, and that's I'm willing to do. I mean, is two weeks gonna, no, it's no, no, absolutely. 54:54 Multiple Speakers: That's what I was getting to the urgent. 54:55 Speaker 21: Michael, two weeks is not gonna make a big difference. I just need to be able to get the equipment in to grind the, the lane markings there off, you know, without getting into cold weather. I mean, everything else can be put up in the cold. 100%. Yeah, absolutely. So, and it's just a re-advertisement of the actual jet is in my correct of the general ordinance, or do you want to do second reading? 55:29 Speaker 21: How do you work? First reading? Okay. And that's fine. We 55:34 Multiple Speakers: can do whatever you want, and we can always amend to however 55:38 Speaker 1: we want. So if you are more comfortable that way, we can do it and then amend it or however, you know, however you guys wanna do it, I am good with. 55:47 Speaker 21: And I'll submit it to Marty to make sure that the language fits. 55:54 Unknown: Yes. 55:54 Speaker 21: Because you do not have that now. 55:58 Speaker 9: So call. All right, I'm gonna beat myself up here but I guess I'm an idiot on this, but so what is presented to us tonight is not an ordinance. No, it 56:12 Speaker 21: was a discussion, 56:13 Speaker 9: even though it says a general 56:14 Speaker 21: or it's a mandate discussion to amend General Ordinance 1995. 56:19 Multiple Speakers: Okay. 56:19 Speaker 9: Okay. Yeah. All right. Thank you for that clarification. 56:23 Multiple Speakers: We don't have the vehicle bill. You weren't the first one to 56:25 Speaker 9: ask that question. I guess I wasn't smart enough to figure that one out. Yeah. I will admit it. Thank you. 56:35 Unknown: Yep. 56:36 Speaker 11: So we don't have a vehicle for this ordinance to be in. No, it was 56:40 Multiple Speakers: just a discussion So why not in two 56:41 Speaker 11: weeks bring us All right. 56:43 Speaker 21: We'll have it in an ordinance fashion. 56:45 Multiple Speakers: And we'll come back to you in two weeks. 56:46 Speaker 11: Do we need to do something? No, and we're just You're just discussing. Having been discussed. There you go. 56:54 Unknown: Yeah. 56:57 Speaker 21: You good? Okay, thank you. No problem. You what? 57:18 Speaker 1: That's it on the agenda tonight. Is there anybody have any announcements? If not, I'll take a motion to adjourn. I so move. Okay, I have a motion to adjourn by Councilman Cain. Second by who was it guys? Councilman Klein. 57:39 Unknown: Roll call. Cain? Aye. 57:41 Speaker 3: Reyes? Aye. Floridis? Aye. 57:44 Multiple Speakers: Brunner? 57:45 Speaker 10: Aye. 57:46 Speaker 3: Klein? Yes. Marshall? 57:48 Speaker 10: Aye. 57:48 Speaker 3: Whitten? 57:49 Unknown: Yes. 57:50 Speaker 3: Devine?